In what was, perhaps, the inevitable result of spending another two days sequestered in a windowless committee room as a steady stream of academics, constitutional lawyers and other anointed experts outlined the pros and cons of moving Canada’s electoral system beyond the winner-take-all First Past The Post, I officially became the latest Hill reporter to predict that the question will likely be decided at the ballot box, either as a stand-alone referendum, or as part of the next election campaign.

To be clear, this shouldn’t be taken as a slam of the special committee itself – as far as I can tell, every one of the MPs who has sat in on one or more sessions this summer appears to be trying their best to take a good faith approach to the issue.

But for the most part, even before the committee was created, their respective parties had staked out their own positions: the New Democrats and the Greens are set on proportional representation, although it’s not clear they agree on the best model to achieve it, while the Conservatives continue to push for a referendum, and the Liberals – well, it’s not really clear, and becoming less so every time the gavel goes down.

In any case, barring sudden onset of consensus at the committee table, it’s hard to imagine the Liberals being willing to risk the considerable political capital that would be at stake if they charged ahead with legislation without cross-aisle support.

So, for fun, let’s fast-forward down this particular choose-your-own-policy-adventure path to – oh, let’s say next spring. Justin Trudeau has just confirmed what had been widely suspected for weeks (this is still Ottawa, after all): As part of their pledge to be open, transparent and all that stuff, they’re going to give Canadians the final say on electoral reform.

What happens next?

Well, that’s where it really gets interesting. This is, after all, the point at which a fair number of FPTP supporters will be sorely tempted to declare victory. Recent political history in British Columbia and Ontario would, after all, suggest that when it comes to voting on how they vote, Canadians have consistently decided to stick with the tried-and-true.

But just as political scientists implore us not to assume we can simply redistribute the results of previous elections to determine how a different formula would have allocated House seats, it would be unwise to assume that a national referendum on electoral reform would play out exactly like it did in the various provinces that have tested those particular waters.

(It’s also worth noting that we’ll soon have an even more recent example to dissect, as Prince Edward Islanders will be voting in a plebiscite on the subject later this fall.)

For one thing, Trudeau and his front-bench colleagues would presumably want to get involved in the ensuing debate, as would the Conservatives, the New Democrats, the Green party and any number of other third-party groups.

That alone would create a far more highly charged – and visible – environment than was the case in Ontario in 2007, when only one of the three major parties – the New Democrats, not surprisingly – openly supported the proposed changes, which effectively relegated the debate to the margins while the main election campaign dominated the discussion.

There would also be considerably more pressure on the government to earmark sufficient public funding for a full public awareness campaign – which would likely be managed by Elections Canada, and would likely be considerably more robust than was the case in previous votes. There’s also precedent for subsidizing campaign efforts by third-party groups, which would also make it more likely that Canadians at large would be drawn into the conversation.

While we’re speculating wildly, why assume a referendum would simply be rolled into the campaign already tentatively scheduled to bring Canadians to the polls in October 2019?

A stand-alone vote could be held within six months of the call – next October, let’s say – which should give the electoral agency sufficient time to adjust if necessary. If that’s not enough time — well, the fixed election date can be reset on the recommendation of the chief electoral officer, so if voters did opt for change that would require rewiring the mechanics, it could be bumped for up to a year without running afoul of the constitution.

Holding a separate referendum vote without tying it to a general election would also put the onus on organizers on all sides to motivate their voter base, which would add a whole new element to the predictive dynamics.

As some of you have no doubt been thinking throughout the last few paragraphs, all of the above theorizing is predicated on the assumption that Trudeau and his government still want to make the 2015 election the last to be held under the existing system, which may or may not be true, now or in the future.

We should get a better idea of where the Liberals are at when the committee files its report this fall – and an even more clear picture when we see how the government responds.

In the interim, though, assume nothing except that, regardless of whether it goes to a referendum, the battle over electoral reform has only just begun.

This Week's Flyers

Comments

Postmedia is pleased to bring you a new commenting experience. We are committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information.